Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010174192025 2025:GAU-AS:14708 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/854/2025 SARIF UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O. MD. NURUL ISLAM, R/O. VILL.- NIZ KATIGORAH PT-III, P/O. KATIGORAH, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788805. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : SABRISH AHMED, S BEGUM,MS A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 31.10.2025 This I.A. has been preferred seeking suspension of the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court vide Judgment & Order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 307/2010, convicting the applicant under Section 307/2010 convicting the Page No.# 2/5 appellant under Section 304 Part (II) of IPC, sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 (eight) years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (Six) month. 2. Mr. Sabrish Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are glaring errors of law as well as on facts committed by the learned Trial Court while convicting and sentencing the accused as aforesaid. 3. It is submitted that in respect of the same incident, there was a cross case in which the witnesses of the present case namely PWs’-1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 13 were all convicted, the case being Sessions Case No. 6 of 2013 before the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar and in that case, the present appellant was awarded compensation by treating him as a victim, but the learned Trial Court in the instant case relying upon the partisan testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses has convicted the present appellant. 4. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court did not at all discuss the Exhibits-A, B, C and D adverted to by PW-11 and PW-17 and did not even mentioned the same in the appendix to the impugned Judgment. It is submitted that there is good chance of succeeding in the instant appeal. 5. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 211, wherein it has been held that the normal rule is that when the appeal of a person convicted and sentenced is pending, the sentence passed on him Page No.# 3/5 should be suspended unless any exceptional reason existing therein requires the denial of the same. 7. Reference was made to Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a person is sentenced to a short-term imprisonment, the normal rule is that pending disposal of the appeal, the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception. 8. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held as follows: “15. We, therefore, direct as under: (i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment. If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount. (ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs 50,000 Page No.# 4/5 with two sureties for like amount. 9. In Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, 2025 INSC 190, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the above Judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. It was further held that in the case of fixed-term sentences, if the courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal. 10. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omprakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, reported in 2023 Live Law SC 389 and Jamnalal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2025 Live Law SC 779, which can be distinguished on facts. 11. In the instant case, having perused the material on record and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the present is a fit case where the execution of the remaining part of the sentence imposed by the impugned Judgment may be suspended. It is accordingly so ordered. 12. Further, during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 307/2010 with a condition that in the event of Page No.# 5/5 dismissal of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2025, the petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court to serve out the remaining part of his sentence imposed by the impugned judgment or as may be directed by the Appellate Court. 13. The Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant